Lords Sitting of 18 March 1869

MINUTES.
PULBIC BILLS—First Reading—East India Irrigation and Canal Company * (31); Increase of the Episcopate * (34); Metropolitan Commons Supplemental * (35).
Third Reading—(£8,406,272 13 s. 4d.) Consolidated Fund *, and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Standing Order No. 179. Sects. 1 and 2 suspended; and the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House, extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess at Easter.

DESPATCH OF BUSINESS IN PARLIAMENT—JOINT COMMITTEE.
Message from the Commons that they have appointed a select committee of six Members to join with the select committee appointed by this House, "to consider whether any facilities can be given for the despatch of business in Parliament, especially in regard to the relations of the two Houses:" Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. BOUVERIE, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. DODSON, Colonel WILSON-PATTEN.
Message to the Commons to propose that the joint committee on, do meet in the Painted Chamber To-morrow, at half past Three o'clock.
Ordered, That the select committee appointed by this House to join with the select committee appointed by the commons on, have power to agree in the appointment of a chairman of such committee.

RECENT MURDERS IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in asking, Whether Her Majesty's Government will communicate to Parliament any reports from constabulary officers, stipendiary magistrates, or other agents concerning the causes of the late murders perpetrated in parts of Ireland within the last twelve months? said, he was I mainly induced to put the Question in consequence of an announcement which had been made in "another place," that the

  1619
  Government did not intend to introduce any measure relating to the land question in Ireland this Session. But he thought the social condition of Ireland at the present time was such that it ought not to be left unnoticed by the Executive or by Parliament. He would not detail the catalogue of crimes which had of late been committed in that country, for these were sufficiently notorious, and it was equally notorious that the perpetrators of them had not been brought to justice. Notwithstanding the improvement that had occurred in most parts of Ireland, this serious state of things existed in certain localities, and though he felt it presumptuous for a private Member of either House of Parliament to offer suggestions as to how the matter should be dealt with, he would venture to offer one which he believed to be worthy of consideration. He did not want any coercive legislation, nor did he desire a series of executions—for he should be content to "let bygones be bygones," if security for life and property could be effected for the future: but he thought inquiries similar to those lately made at Sheffield might throw light on the causes of these crimes, so as to assist the Government and Parliament in taking action on the subject. In certain parts of the country the people were setting the law at defiance, and practically exercising rule by what they would, perhaps, call "Vigilance Committees," the police being perfectly powerless. He should be among the last to apologize in any way for assassins, but, considering the limited extent of country in which this state of things prevailed, it was impossible not to feel that the condition of society and the customs and usages of all classes must be different in certain districts from those which obtained in the rest of the country. He thought, therefore, that the Lord Lieutenant should be empowered to issue a Commission of Inquiry whenever one of these outrages had been committed, in order to ascertain its cause and origin, and to bring the whole facts before the public. It had often, he was aware, been said that in Ireland there was no public opinion; the difference of feeling between classes and creeds being so great that, when a wrong was committed, the first inquiry of a person told of it would probably be whether the victim was a Roman Catholic
  1620
  or a Protestant, and his feeling would be more or less influenced by the answer to that question. It was obviously of the greatest importance to create a sound public opinion, which would be called into action on the conduct of individuals in cases where that conduct could not be restrained by law. Property, as was often said, had its duties as well as its rights; but the question was how those duties could be enforced; and that they had been neglected in certain parts and by certain persons was no reason for making laws which would affect the rights by which alone property in civilized communities could be held with security. With regard to Tipperary, which was the chief, though not the only, district that had lately been disgraced by these crimes, the late Mr. John Wilson Croker, as long ago as 1806 or 1807, published a remarkable and well-known pamphlet, in which he remarked on the absence of that healthy public opinion which prevailed in England, and he re-published it in 1822, during Lord Wellesley's administration. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) could mention particular families in which there had been assassinations in successive generations; and the fact that these outrages were mostly confined to certain localities was a proof that the social and proprietary condition of those localities was unsatisfactory. The Government should therefore institute inquiries in those districts; for though these crimes cast a stigma on the whole country and on the Government, it would be a mistake to suppose that good relations did not subsist between landlords and tenants in Ireland generally. In many cases there had indisputably been oppression and injustice, and indeed this had been more than once animadverted upon from the judicial bench, but these were no excuse for assassination. As to legislation, were the rights of property to be interfered with because there were persons who abused those rights? All over the world from the earliest times rich men had had the power to oppress poor men, and had been bad enough to exercise it; but this was no reason for taking away rights upon which prosperity, and even civilization must depend. The Government ought to show a determination to uphold the law, while ready to amend it in every reasonable way. He was sorry,

  1621
  however, to say that language had of late been used respecting the land, not only in the "heedless rhetoric" of election speeches, but in. pamphlets seriously and deliberately written, and which smelt a good deal of the midnight oil, which language had tended to give the Irish peasantry a notion that the land was to be divided among them. This absurd notion was seriously entertained, and transactions had actually been entered into upon it as the credible intention of Parliament. At the time of the Fenian disturbance it was well known that people in America were actually advancing money on estates in Ireland, which were to be divided if the Fenians succeeded, and were likely to be confiscated by Parliament, even if the Fenians did not succeed. A degree of ferment had been excited which was dangerous to the Empire, and the subject ought not to be allowed to rest without a declaration on the part of the Government that there should be no legislation except upon sound principles. Opinions had been expressed by persons in Office, and by influential men not in Office, that the property of non-resident or Protestant landlords might be arbitrarily dealt with by Parliament, and these opinions had been broached by people who professed the principles of Free Trade. Now was it likely that capitalists would purchase or advance money upon land in Ireland when such doctrines were put forth? It might, indeed, be said that the English people had too much good sense to pay any attention to such notions; but they produced a great effect on the minds of the Irish peasantry. The Government had introduced a measure respecting the Church which they justly believed would be very popular in Ireland—but what effect had this policy had upon agrarian outrages? Why, notwithstanding the large majority in the House of Commons last March in favour of disestablishment, and notwithstanding the visit of the Prince of Wales in the following month, which gave great joy to the whole country, in that very month a series of outrages was commenced by the murder of Mr. Fether-stonhaugh in Westmeath. Another soon followed, and there had since been three in Tipperary—making five murders or attempts to murder. It was clear, then, that the peasantry paid no attention to the great measure which was now in
  1622
  hand, but that, having heard there was to be a division of the land, they were making themselves rulers of the land in those localities where discontent existed. There could be no palliation for murder; but the cases in which tyranny and oppression had been exercised should be brought to light, in order that the public might know that they were isolated cases, and that the relations of landlord and tenant were not unsatisfactory throughout the island, although the statute law required amendment. He hoped the Government—although they might not now be able to give any positive assurance or make any explicit statement—would be able soon after Easter, whether they brought in a Bill this Session or not, to state their views as to the principles on which legislation should be based, and that they would also be able to give some information to the House as to the cause of these melancholy events. He would now put the Question of which he had given notice.
  LORD DUFFERIN: Considering the numerous agrarian murders and other outrages of that description which have lately occurred in Ireland, I am not surprised that my noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) should have thought it his duty to draw your Lordships' attention to the topics which: formed the substance of his speech. As I had occasion to remark in this House only a week or so since, everybody connected with Ireland must feel deeply humiliated by the accounts of transactions of this description which have come before the public, and I can well understand that they have engaged the anxious attention of my noble Friend. With regard to the information for which he has asked, it would be extremely inconvenient to supply it, and for this simple reason—that those Papers and Reports contain allusions to persons who are suspected, indeed, of being implicated in those crimes, but against whom no sufficient evidence has at present been adduced. The publication of their names would, therefore, be very undesirable. My noble Friend has displayed an anxiety—I must say a very natural anxiety—and one, no doubt, which is shared in by your Lordships—to know what measures are in contemplation by the Executive in Ireland for putting an end to these outrages and murders, and for

  1623
  vindicating the majesty of the law. On that head I trust I shall be able to make a most reassuring announcement. Her Majesty's Government—as well in this country as in Ireland—are deeply sensible that they are bound by every consideration to do all that in them lies to bring these offenders to justice, and to make everybody understand who is in any way engaged in conspiracies of this description, whether as principals or as associates, whether by abetting or concealing the delinquents, that no pains or expense will be spared in bringing to justice the wretched and cowardly ruffians who are the authors of these atrocities. With that view the Lord Lieutenant has made an arrangement that whenever any outrage of this kind is reported—whether it be a murder or an attempt to murder, whether an ordinary agrarian outrage, or whether the lives of peaceable citizens are threatened by letters or in any other way—a considerable police force shall immediately be sent down to the district to be quartered upon the locality and to be supported out of the rates contributed by the inhabitants under the Peace Preservation Act of Ireland. Experience has proved that this is a very effective remedy for the prevention and discouragement of such offences, and I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government in Ireland will not hesitate to put it in force whenever the circumstances seem to justify the application of so severe a remedy. As, however, I remarked on a former occasion, and as has been fully acknowledged by the noble Marquess, it must always be remembered that these horrible crimes have been almost entirely confined to particular counties. They have been localized there; and the county where the greater number of them have occurred has been long known as the very centre and hotbed of Ribbandism, having for years past been noted for offences of this description, while in the rest of Ireland crimes of such a nature are almost as unknown as in any part of England. I have further to state—and I must say it is with very great pain and regret I state it, but it is my duty to do so—that it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Irish Government that this sudden development of crime in that particular county is in a great measure, if not entirely, to be attributed to the
  1624
  lax manner in which the law was applied to the punishment of an individual who placed himself within its clutches in that particular district. It is to that circumstance, as much as to any other that these crimes have been perpetrated in so fearless a manner. Be that, however, as it may I am happy to be able to assure your Lordships—if, indeed, any such assurance is necessary—that the Lord Lieutenant is fully sensible of the responsibility imposed upon him, and is perfectly determined to do everything in his power to bring these offenders to justice, and to make everybody understand that, however anxious the Government may be to inaugurate a policy of justice and conciliation towards Ireland—however anxious they may be to redress grievances, and, as far as circumstances may admit, to improve the laws which regulate the relation between landlord and tenant, they are, nevertheless, firmly determined to punish crime, to protect life and to make the legitimate rights of property respected. The most admirable administration of justice and the greatest energy on the part of the Executive must, however, prove ineffectual, unless a healthy public opinion seconds their endeavours. When we find that in the popular sentiment murderers are elevated into political martyrs, and that the butchery of a landlord, under the most atrocious and cowardly circumstances, is very often referred to by the Press in terms little short of complacent palliation; when the conscience of an uninstructed populace is blunted and their moral sense depraved, as is too often the case in Ireland by those to whom they look for guidance—that respect for human life which is the very foundation of human society becomes enfeebled, and the expedient of murder and assassination, which has been resorted to under the plea of patriotism or in the supposed defence of a tenant's natural rights, quickly becomes adopted, as seems to have been the case with respect to the unfortunate Mr. Anketell, whenever any vindictive spirit may fancy he has a grudge against a fellow-creature. It is not only to the Executive but to public opinion in Ireland that we must appeal; and I must say, as an Irishman, that if the educated classes of every party and of every religion, considering that the interests of all are engaged in producing

  1625
  such a result, will follow the admirable example set by his Eminence Cardinal Cullen, and the wise and patriotic counsels which he has lately promulgated, then, indeed, there will be a prospect of Ireland being at last free from that particular description of crime for which I am sorry to say she is the only country noted in Europe.
  EARL GREY: The House is deeply indebted to my noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) for having brought under our consideration a subject than which there is none more deserving of serious attention. The increase of crime in Ireland is indeed most alarming. The want of security for life and property seems to be extending, and it is fatal to all hopes of improvement in that country. How can we expect a system of agriculture which is confessedly very backward to give place to a better, when neither tenants nor landlords are free to improve their property as it requires without bringing upon themselves a fearful death? How can we expect to find any enterprizes or manufactures to take root in a country—which, after all, has great natural advantages for such undertakings—when we find a great railway company, because it dismisses a servant for misconduct, liable to have one of its trusty and faithful servants barbarously murdered; and when, as I am told, that company had much difficulty in replacing some of those who have given up their situations in consequence of the alarm? How is it possible under such circumstances that improvements can be carried on? I heard with great satisfaction from my noble Friend (Lord Dufferin) that it is the determination of the Government, by a firm and vigorous administration of the law, to endeavour to check these offences and to grapple with that spirit of lawlessness which seems to prevail. I feel it my duty, however, to observe that I cannot but think it difficult to avoid connecting the present increase of crime in Ireland with imprudence both in language and in conduct on the part of Her Majesty's Government. We all know that persons holding very high situations have used strong language with reference to the oppression endured by the tenants in Ireland. They have declared the wrongs of the tenants to be so great as to require immediate and complete redress, and have encouraged
  1626
  the expectation that some great change in the law for their advantage would be proposed. I believe the Attorney General for Ireland went so far as to assure his constituents that this subject would be immediately and satisfactorily dealt with. And, unfortunately, the language that has been used has not only been very strong, but very vague. In all that has been said as to the oppression suffered by the tenants, very little reference, as far as I know, has been made to the great practical difficulties of this question—to the danger of rash and unwise legislation upon it—to the probability that by adopting some of the measures which have been recommended you would do infinitely more harm than good even to that class which desires such changes. I observe no reference to these things; but what I find is, that while, in vague and. indefinite language, wrongs are dwelt upon and the redress of those wrongs promised, both the nature of that redress and the time at which it is to be expected have been left altogether in obscurity. All we know is that the land laws of Ireland are not to be dealt with in the present Session. Now, what was likely to be the consequence of such a mode of dealing with an excitable people such as the Irish, and in a very excited state of mind on this subject. We know for how many years disputes with regard to the land have prevailed in Ireland, what fierce passions have been aroused, and what deplorable results have followed. In this state of things what could be expected from the holding of such language by men whom they naturally respect and look up to? What could be the effect on the minds of the Irish peasantry when that language was coupled with the absence of any attempt whatever for the present to grapple with the question? Surely just what has happened—that the Irish people would be thrown back on their old plan of taking the matter into their own hands and enforcing their own code on landlords by the barbarous means they had formerly employed. These agrarian outrages, which we fondly hoped, a year or two ago, were gradually dying out and would soon cease, have, as is admitted, within a very short time become much more common. It appears to me that this is the natural consequence which might have been expected to follow from the conduct of the Government in at

  1627
  once stimulating by their language the eager desire of the Irish peasantry for some change in the law relating to the occupation of land, and refusing to explain what changes they contemplated. In my opinion this question of the tenure of land is of such pressing and urgent importance that it was the duty of the Government on acceding to Office to take the very earliest steps they could to endeavour to effect some settlement of the question. And they had every facility for doing so. This subject has been repeatedly discussed of late years. Bill after Bill has been brought before Parliament, there have been Committees of Inquiry in both Houses, and every information that can be wanted on the subject was in the possession of the Government. Why, then, did they not introduce a Bill at the commencement of the Session? If it be said that the attention of the other House was fully occupied, it might have been introduced in this House. What was absolutely necessary for the peace of Ireland was, that, without a moment's unnecessary delay, the people of Ireland should be made clearly to understand the views of the Government on the question, the nature of the redress they were to expect, and how soon they might hope to obtain it. If the Government had determined that a Bill upon the principle of what was called compulsory compensation to tenants should be introduced, they might have brought it in. I believe it to be impossible to pass such a Bill without creating more injustice than we can redress; but, at all events, let us know the extent of it, for at this moment the wildest notions are entertained on the subject. People talk of fixity of tenure and compulsory compensation for improvements. Now, fixity of tenure is only another name for confiscation; and I do not think there are many persons either in or out of this House, who believe that a system of confiscation would be for the ultimate benefit of any class in Ireland. With regard to compensation for improvements, we are inclined at first sight to admit the justice of compensating the tenant for improvements he has effected; but when we come to look into the question we see that very great difficulties have to be encountered. The problem may, indeed, be solved, but I venture to say that hitherto no
  1628
  changes in the law have been suggested which would not aggravate rather than diminish the evil. The advocates of tenant-right have been heard by Select Committees, and some of them have enunciated views so wild that few would support them; while even those who have been the most moderate in the changes they recommended have, hitherto at least, been unable to point out a practical mode of getting rid of the objections to which those changes are open. There are, I know, many persons who still believe the principle to be a sound one. For myself, I can only say I should be glad to see it worked out; but hitherto no practical means of doing it have been discovered. Now, with the expectations of the people so vague and undefined, while they are looking for so much more than can possibly be granted, is it wise to excite them by denunciations of the wrongs they suffer, and at the same time to abstain from tranquillizing their minds by pointing out the nature of the redress they are to obtain? Every year a settlement is delayed the more difficult that settlement will become, for the population will become more and more wedded to the extreme notions which many of them have adopted. I deeply regret, therefore, that the Government have not endeavoured to grapple with the subject. After the long consideration it has undergone, and all the materials being before them, it would not have required a great deal of time to determine whether or not they could adopt this principle of compulsory compensation. If they could not—if they had been inclined to proceed on the simple principle of correcting the faults of the existing law, and—while introducing no new principles of legislation, to remove the obstacles which now stand in the way of voluntary agreements between landlords and tenants—to provide means by which those agreements could be cheaply made and their performance promptly and cheaply enforced—if this principle had been adopted, the work was almost done to their hands; because during the last two Sessions, a Select Committee of this House devoted very great labour, patience, and assiduity to the consideration of a Bill that was introduced by my noble Friend the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde). That Bill was drawn with great ability by Mr.

  1629
  Tighe Hamilton; it was most carefully considered by the Committee, with Mr. Hamilton's assistance; many Amendments were made in its provisions, and though in some points of detail I did not concur with the majority of the Committee, I heartily agreed in what I believe was the opinion of every Member of it—that the Bill as amended would have effected a great improvement in the existing law of landlord and tenant in Ireland. On this ground it was unanimously recommended by the Committee, of which three persons now holding seats in the Cabinet were members, as a measure which was fit to pass; and while we differed upon various matters, there were two points on which the Committee, as also the witnesses we examined, were unanimous. The first was, that the present law is calculated to produce misunderstandings between landlords and tenants, and to discourage the granting of leases, and is altogether nearly as bad as possible. We have heard it said, indeed, that the law of landlord and tenant is the same in Ireland as in England, and it is asked, "Why should it not work well in Ireland?" Now, there can be no greater mistake. The law in Ireland is practically not the same as in England, nor anything like it. By decisions of courts of law, and by various changes which have been made from time to time, the law, as regards small tenements in Ireland, has become so confused and so difficult to enforce that it is a disgrace to a civilized nation. As long ago as the time of Lord Devon's Commission, Mr. O'Connell—no mean authority upon the subject—condemned almost as strongly as I have now done the state of the law, and it has since undergone no material improvement. The other point on which the Committee and the witnesses agreed was that, even though it might be expedient hereafter to go further, the Bill, as amended by us, would effect an enormous improvement in the existing law—would do much to correct the evils now most complained of—would encourage the granting of leases, and would take away the most fruitful source of those misunderstandings which are the great cause of outrage and murder in Ireland. This was the opinion of every person whose opinion was given; and one gentleman, I remember, whom we examined, as one of the ablest ex-
  1630
  ponents of the doctrine of tenant-right—while he would not admit that the Bill went far enough—stated distinctly that it was a step in the right direction. I wish Her Majesty's Government had decided to bring this Bill before the House; but, as they have not done so, I still hope the noble Marquess will again submit it to your Lordships, and will throw the responsibility of rejecting it, if it is to be rejected, on Her Majesty's Government. But my Lords, I have already observed it is not merely the increase of agrarian outrages which causes anxiety as to the present state of Ireland. It was not an agrarian outrage we have been startled with at Mullingar; it was a crime of a new and more formidable character—not altogether new, perhaps, but I do not remember an instance of so great a crime having been perpetrated with a view of coercing a great company such as a railway company. Now with reference to that outrage, let me call your attention to a Return which has lately been laid upon the table of the other House of Parliament. It gives the names of forty-nine Fenian convicts, who had been sentenced to penal servitude—thirty-four of whom are in Australia, and the remainder were in convict prisons at home—whom Her Majesty's Government have determined to release from custody. It also states the sentences passed upon them, and what portion of those sentences remain unexpired. If you examine this Return, you will find the earliest of the sentences was passed in December, 1865, the latest in October, 1867, and the majority in the latter year. You perceive, therefore that those prisoners who were first sentenced have served less than three years and a half; the majority have served only about half that time, perhaps little more than a year-and-a-half. And what were the sentences? Three of the men were sentenced to death, but their capital punishment was afterwards commuted to penal servitude for life. Now, we are all aware that a sentence of death commuted to penal servitude for life implies guilt of the most aggravated kind. The other convicts were sentenced to various terms ranging from five to fifteen years. Now, my Lords, it is only five years ago that the Commissioners of Penal Servitude called the attention of the Government and of Parliament to the injurious effects which arise from the arbitrary exercise

  1631
  of the prerogative of pardon. They pointed out that uncertainty as to whether a sentence passed by a criminal court would be fully carried, out had the effect of diminishing the efficiency of our penal system and impairing the power of the criminal law in maintaining the peace of society. They therefore recommended that while according to certain fixed rules, criminals should continue to have the power of earning the remission of a comparatively small portion of the sentences passed upon them, the remainder should be uniformly and inexorably carried into effect unless where special circumstances called for mercy. That was the substance of the rule laid down by the Commissioners, and, if I am not greatly mistaken, it met with the full approval of both Her Majesty's Government and of Parliament, for legislation has been founded upon the impression that that was to be the rule for the future. But, my Lords, if that rule was adopted in this manner, with the implied sanction of Parliament, I want to know why it has been set aside in this case? Or, if it has not been set aside, what are the special or exceptional circumstances which justify this indiscriminate exercise of the prerogative of pardon with respect to the Fenian convicts? Are these exceptional circumstances to be found in the character of the crimes committed? Do you remember what the Fenian conspiracy was, the alarm it created, the mischief it did? Do you remember that it was a deliberate plot to overturn the Government of the Queen in Ireland, and to establish an Irish Republic, and to shrink from the adoption of no means, however atrocious, for the purpose of accomplishing that end? Midnight assassination, to burn or blow up or otherwise procure the death of Her Majesty's faithful troops were the means contemplated for this purpose; and though such wholesale slaughter was not accomplished, it was not the will but the power of the conspirators which failed. Still several murders were committed, several persons were killed in the execution of their duty, or afterwards shot in revenge for having exerted themselves in maintaining the authority of the law; and the criminality of the conspirators culminated in that frightful and unexampled outrage committed at Clerkenwell. My Lords, can the crime of taking an active
  1632
  part in such a conspiracy as this be viewed with special indulgence? Was this a case in which you' should deliberately set aside the rules laid down with the approval of Parliament for the administration of penal justice? I say, exactly the reverse. Clemency had already been carried as far as it could be, with due regard to the peace and safety of Her Majesty's subjects, when the Government—very properly dealing leniently with the conspirators—prosecuted but a few of them on capital charges, and inflicted capital punishment on none but those whose hands were actually imbrued with blood. I am told that political offences ought to be viewed with indulgence—that they do not imply moral guilt, and that they may, therefore, be safely treated with more indulgence than you would show to ordinary criminals. I utterly deny the truth of that principle. I admit that persons have sacrificed their lives on the scaffold in fruitless attempts to upset some extremely cruel and oppressive Government, who are generally and justly regarded as martyrs rather than as criminals; but, even with regard to bad Governments, it has been held by very high authority to be criminal to use violence in opposing them, unless there has been, not only extreme oppression, but unless there is also a reasonable prospect of success. The evils of civil war are so great and certain that it has been argued—and as I think rightly—that even against the worst Government no man is morally justified in using force except with a fair prospect of success. Be that as it may, I believe no man of ordinary sense denies it to be true that nothing but the extreme case of a most cruel and oppressive Government justifies an appeal to force. When you look at the misery which civil war entails, to resort to it, without extreme provocation, is in the highest degree blameable. When that dire extremity is resorted to merely to gratify men's excited passions, or to forward their own selfish objects, no guilt can be greater. Surely, then, on every point of view that Fenian conspiracy was totally without justification. It had not the remotest chance of success; and I am certain there is no one who could for a moment say the Government of this country in Ireland was one of those cruel and oppressive Governments which justified an attempt to overturn it by force. For the last half cen-

  1633
  tury at least there has been nothing cruel in the Imperial Government of Ireland. If bad laws still remain there, constitutional means are at the command of the people to procure redress. I say, therefore, that in every point of view this Fenian rebellion was one of the most wanton and most wicked that could possibly be conceived, and that those who took part in it are more morally guilty, as they are certainly more dangerous to society, than the thief or the burglar. If there was, as I think, nothing in the offence to justify the exceptional exercise of the power of pardon on the part of the Crown, it appears to me there was everything in the state of Ireland to determine the Government against it. Disregard of law is the great curse of that country; to establish the authority of the law and to show the peaceful subjects of the Queen that they have nothing to fear ought to be the paramount object of every man who aspires to the name of a Statesman. But, observe, this offence of Fenianism is closely allied to that other offence I have just described, and the Fenian brotherhood is first cousin to the Ribband brotherhood. Ribbandism and Fenianism are the same in principle; they are secret societies in opposition to the laws and the constituted authorities. I ask you, at a time when Ribbandism is rife, is it wise, is it prudent, to show lenity towards a still more wicked secret society? More than this, the spirit of Fenianism is not extinct in Ireland. You know that by the manner in which the discharged convicts have just been received; you know it by the speeches and declarations made in public by the chief officers of two of the largest and most wealthy cities in Ireland. Why those speeches were not made grounds of criminal indictment—why the speakers were not called upon to answer for their seditious language—I am totally at a loss to comprehend. And when this impunity given to those who had used such language was followed by the release of the Fenian convicts, what other interpretation could be put by the people of Ireland on the conduct of Her Majesty's Government except that it must have been caused by fear, and that Her Majesty's Government consider engaging in conspiracies of this sort a venial offence? This ill-judged clemency seems to me to be very dangerous, because it leads people to
  1634
  suppose that resort to violence is the best mode of obtaining changes of the law. Already a good deal of effect of this kind has been produced. I have heard it said, on good authority, that a belief is generally held that it is owing to Fenianism that the question of the Irish Church has been brought forward by those who, as members of a former Government, only two years before opposed the making of oven a small change, as calculated to inflame existing differences in Ireland. I cannot be surprised that such should be the impression produced by the mode of dealing with the Church question; and I think it is very dangerous in the present state of the land question to encourage a similar belief with regard to that. It is equally dangerous to lead men to suppose that engaging in conspiracies against the Government is a venial offence. I say that nothing is more calculated to sap the foundations of government. My noble Friend who addressed the House immediately before me, in his reply to the noble Marquess, said he attributed a great part of the increased crime in the South of Ireland to the injudicious lenity which had been, shown by those who had been entrusted with the administration of the law. In that I agree with my noble Friend. I say in that sentence he has pronounced the severest condemnation upon the release of these Fenian prisoners which it was possible to utter.
  LORD DUFFERIN: I beg to explain. I did not use the word "lenity" as applied to a criminal, but spoke of "laxity" in the prosecution of an offence.
  EARL GREY: I thank my noble Friend for the correction. "Laxity" describes the conduct of the Government much better than "lenity," so I will call it laxity; but I think the laxity condemned in the South of Ireland was more strongly displayed by the release of these Fenian prisoners. I have thought it right to express my opinion upon these points, because the policy of the Government in the administration of Ireland seems to me to be gradually drifting more and more in a direction which is fatal to all just authority and good government. It is not without great reluctance I have expressed opinions so unfavourable to the course taken by Her Majesty's Government; but I should have been ashamed of myself if I had allowed any personal feeling to

  1635
  interfere with me in performing what I believed to be my duty when I perceived a policy was being pursued which was calculated to endanger the safety of this great Empire.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have to ask your Lordships' permission to be somewhat irregular in continuing a debate when there is absolutely no question before the House. I have no personal complaint to make of my noble Friend (Earl Grey), because three days ago he told me that this evening he should speak on the subject of the release of the Fenians, and yesterday afternoon I got an additional message from him stating that he should allude to the speeches of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bright, and the Attorney General. That was rather a vague notice, because the noble Earl did not couple it with the slightest indication of what speeches or passages he meant to allude to; and, considering the part the noble Earl has taken in recommending that public notice should be given of all matters to be brought before your Lordships' House, if he intended to make a speech on the two subjects he has discussed, it would have been more fair to independent Peers if he had put a definite Notice on the Paper, instead of basing his speech on the Question put by the noble Marquess. I concur with every word that fell from the noble Earl respecting the late outrages in Ireland, and more especially with what he said on the very bad feature, that whereas they have hitherto been confined to landlords, in a recent instance an outrage has been committed against a person belonging to a different class and interest. I ventured to say the other day that Her Majesty's Government, notwithstanding their wish to behave with the utmost conciliation towards the people of Ireland, are equally determined to show firmness in dealing with these outrages; and so impressed was the Lord Lieutenant with the soundness of the policy of the Government in that respect, and with the necessity of acting promptly in the matter, that, to my very great satisfaction, without even communicating with the Home Government, he took upon himself to adopt those measures which the noble Lord by my side (Lord Dufferin) has described, and which received the praise of the noble Earl. Going into some detail with regard to the tenure of land, the
  1636
  noble Earl complains that the Government have abstained from bringing in a measure on that subject, and he coupled the complaint with a remark which was rather singular; for, speaking of the difficulties of the question, he said nothing had ever yet been proposed, or could be proposed, which would not aggravate instead of diminishing them. I believe, however, that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns), when, on the first day of the Session he reviewed the measures recommended to the Legislature by the Government, did not complain that a Land Tenure Bill was not among them, but only reproached us with not dealing with the important question of education in that country. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord abstained from referring to the matter from the recollection that last year the Government to which he belonged announced that they had a measure ready, and even named an early day on which they would introduce it; but whether it arose from the fact that they had another great measure on the stocks or not I do not know, but certainly nothing was done. I think it is perfectly obvious—indeed it is an historical fact that whether rightly or wrongly, by the force of circumstances, or in consequence of anything left undone by Her Majesty's late Government I do not pretend to decide, the one great question submitted to all the constituencies throughout Ireland, as well as throughout Scotland and England, was the question of the Irish Church, and any one with the legislative and Parliamentary experience of the noble Earl must surely feel that, with a question of so much importance awaiting decision, it would be unfair to encumber it with a great number of other questions—questions, too, of a nature certain to excite considerable conflict of opinion, not only in the House of Commons, but throughout the country. I do not think that I need say any more to defend ourselves against that charge. My noble Friend, in the course of his speech, professed to quote certain words from a speech of the Attorney General for Ireland; but, unless the noble Earl possesses some special information on the subject, I should very much doubt whether the Attorney General ever promised that Mr. Gladstone would immediately introduce a measure which should give satisfaction to Ire-

  1637
  land. I have also very carefully attended to the statements of my Colleagues with regard to the land question. One of my Colleagues, it is true, has propounded a voluntary plan on this subject; but both he and Mr. Gladstone have carefully guarded themselves against any proposal which is inconsistent with the sanctity of property and the principles by which its possession is protected. But my noble Friend (Earl Grey) has gone much further. He has attributed those outrages to the leniency lately shown by the Government with; regard to the Fenians. Now, the information I have received goes to show that hitherto no connection has been traced between Ribbandism and Fenianism. No trace of it has been found in the numerous threatening letters forwarded for information to the Castle, not one of which has contained the slightest allusion to Fenianism. But my noble Friend objects to the release of certain prisoners connected with the Fenian conspiracy. My noble Friend stated very particularly that so far from there being no difference between the ordinary criminal offences and political offences, the latter offences were the more dangerous, and ought, therefore, to be attended with severer punishment. On that point, I am not prepared to say that he is not perfectly right. But, I believe that Her Majesty's Government must deal with these matters not purely in accordance with abstract principles, but that they must pay some consideration to the usages and preconceived opinions and feelings of, the whole of the community. I will not refer to the opinions held in foreign countries; but what have been the opinions expressed by Statesmen in this country, during the last fifty years, with regard to transactions which have occurred in Rome, Naples, Poland, and formerly in Austria? The opinion is one that has been shared in by the whole community of this country. And what has been the legislative action in this matter? With regard to our extradition treaties it has always been the complaint made by Foreign Governments that the worst murderer, or the assassin of the deepest dye, could always remain in this country without danger if he could, by any means, show a connection between his crime and political feeling. And what has been done in this country? The liberation of convicted Chartists
  1638
  was the graceful accompaniment of a Royal marriage, and in 1848, Mr. Smith O'Brien and his confederates were all released before the expiration of their sentences. I was surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) loudly cheer the statement of the noble Earl that Her Majesty's Government had released one who had been sentenced to death, but whose sentence had been commuted to penal servitude for life; for I find among those released by the late Government the name of Michael Hanley, sentenced to penal servitude for life; and, among others also released occurs the name of Patrick Doran, convicted of high treason, sentenced to death, but whose sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life, and who, I presume, was not released without previous consultation on the subject with the noble and learned Lord himself. Now, I will not challenge my noble Friend on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey) to contradict me, because I know no limit to his powers in that respect, but I would ask if it is possible to take a rebellion on a larger scale, more fatal to life, and more destructive to property, creating a more enormous amount of misery, than the great rebellion in the United States, which only closed the other day? And yet does anyone think that it is unprincipled, inexpedient, or unwise that the person who was principally responsible for that rebellion, Mr. Jefferson Davis, should be permitted to reside at London or Paris? I believe Shakespeare understood the feeling of the people of this country better than the noble Earl does, when he wrote—
  "And earthly power doth then show likest God's
  When mercy seasons justice."
  The late Government refused even to receive addresses on the subject. But Her Majesty's present Government thought that it would be better to act upon a principle which I trust they may be able to carry out—to unite conciliation with real firmness. The Irish Government made repeated scrutinies into every single case, and there were three classes of offenders whom from the first they determined not to release—the criminal, if I may so distinguish them, as against the purely political offenders—the class which comprised those who were known to be habitual conspirators, and those who, from their energy or talents as soldiers

  1639
  or men of letters might, if released, prove a source of danger in the present dormant state of Fenianism. Those who have been released are chiefly those whose health has suffered from confinement and bodily weakness—young men who may be characterized as enthusiasts and dupes—men with no moral or intellectual power, and whose release will not only be attended with perfect safety, but, so far from affording encouragement to Fenianism, will tend to prevent that growing sympathy for captives immured in this manner, the existence of which in Ireland cannot be a matter of doubt. I believe that the course we have adopted is one combining security and mercy; and I believe, moreover, that the results even at present have not been unsatisfactory. It is quite true that it may have given rise to some foolish speeches—to some absurd remarks. Something of this nature may reasonably be anticipated from a people naturally so excitable and impulsive as the Irish; but all these demonstrations, with, I believe, but one exception, have been purely in the nature of a hearty welcome given by his neighbours to the prisoner who has been restored to liberty. My noble Friend was justified in referring to the letter from the head of the religion of the great majority of the people of Ireland, not only emphatically condemning Fenianism and Ribbandism, but obviously going against some of the first feelings of the people to whom it was addressed by deprecating actions which, though committed with a charitable object, might be construed into showing favour and encouragement to Fenianism. The fact is the subscription has been successful only in Cork. At Belfast, there has been no collection; and the telegram states that the general failure of the subscription movement has been entirely owing to the action of the Roman Catholic clergy. I believe that the policy of punishing the leaders, but at the same time not showing vindictiveness against mere dupes and enthusiasts, is the only one by which we can put ourselves in a position to deal effectively with Fenianism, because I believe that by this policy we shall have the people of Ireland on our side of the contest.
  LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, I cannot think that after the narratives which have appeared in the papers during the last week or two anyone can be sur-
  1640
  prised that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) should have called your Lordships' attention to occurrences which we should all unite in deploring. I believe, however, that many Members of your Lordships' House—and myself among the number—supposed that a more fitting opportunity would have presented itself for a discussion such as that which has arisen this evening. At the beginning of the Session we were informed by Her Majesty's Government that it would not be necessary for them to come forward and ask for a renewal of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. That announcement was most gratifying to us all; but I thought an opportunity would be taken by the Government, either here or "elsewhere," to lay before Parliament the information of which they were in possession, and which would explain to Parliament the altered circumstances of the country, which caused Her Majesty's Government to think exceptional legislation of that kind no longer necessary. I suppose the Government have not taken that course because the Act for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus was an expiring one; but, as no information of that kind has been laid before Parliament, I think it necessary that I should say a few words in reference to the state of Ireland, as well as we are able to judge of it from the information before the House. My Lords, I myself, among the narratives of crime one has read within the last ten days, can recollect four instances of different kinds of crime, showing how widely spread must be the lawlessness which pervades that part of the country in which these crimes have been committed. The first of these cases was the murder of Mr. Anketell. This was a case in which an employer of labour felt it his interest to employ one man rather than another, and ill-will engendered by that proceeding was the cause of the assassination. To that I will add that if it be true—and I sincerely hope it is not true, though it is stated to be so not anonymously, but on highly respectable authority—that on the Sunday before the commission of the murder the victim was denounced from the altar of a Roman Catholic chapel, that circumstance must increase the horror of the crime and our regret at the state of feeling

  1641
  prevailing in that part of the country. The second case is that of a bailiff of a Member of your Lordships' House who was fired at. One account states that he was fired at not for an offence given to some persons not in the part of the country where an attempt was made on his life, but in another place. In another account we are told that he was fired at in mistake for somebody else whom those who fired at him had intended to shoot. If this latter report be true, it must add to one's horror of the recklessness of criminals who do not even take the trouble of making sure of the identity of the person against whom they would discharge their deadly malice. The next case that occurs to me is that of a man who sent his children to a school where they were under the instruction of a denomination to which he himself did not belong. That man died and was buried; but his coffin was taken out of the grave, stones were placed in it, and it was sunk in a lake, where the remains of the deceased man were exposed. This gives us a deplorable idea of the ruthlessness of the feelings of those who could perpetrate such an outrage. Then there was the case of an occupier of land whose dwelling-house was fired into. The inmates escaped only because they happened to be in bed. And yet it is under such circumstances as these that a wholesale pardon of prisoners has taken place. In such a deplorable state of things, the only consolation we receive from my noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Dufferin), as far as I can see, is that, in the first place, Her Majesty's Government must rely on public opinion in Ireland; that, in the next place, the Lord Lieutenant will send to any district in which such offences are committed additional police, and order the expenses of this additional force to be paid by that district; and that, in the third place, the law will be administered with firmness by the Government. Now, as to public opinion in Ireland, it is divided into two classes. There is the opinion of, I hope, a small minority of the people, but still of a section whom we cannot disregard. By these persons not only are the offences to which I am referring winked at, but the perpetrators are shielded. I think, therefore, we cannot rely on that phase of public opinion. The other public opinion in Ireland is that of the majority, who regard those
  1642
  offences with horror: but I want to know what assistance they can give to the Government in preventing offences which are winked at, and the perpetrators of which are shielded by the minority of whom I have just spoken? The Government of this country has always had to a large extent opinion in Ireland on its side. If, therefore, public opinion in Ireland has any power in the matter, it ought long ago to have prevented such outrages. As to the Lord Lieutenant sending police and having them charged on the district, I want to know what satisfaction it can be to the man who has been murdered, or to the wife and children whom he has left behind him, or to those who are suffering from the crime to have an army of police sent down from Dublin to be paid for by increased local taxation falling on the innocent and peaceful portion of the community? Again, we are told that the law will be applied by Her Majesty's Government with the utmost firmness—and as this is a very important point I will refer to it at greater length. I think it is most important to see what are the principles which Her Majesty's Government have pursued with reference to those who had been reached by the law, who after a great deal of trouble had been convicted and were undergoing the sentence of the law. The noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies says that the late Government discharged three criminals. [Earl GRANVILLE: Four, I think.] Well, say four. I have no personal knowledge of these eases; but I have no doubt that the late Government exercised a wise discretion in those instances. Indeed, I think if any one looks at the number of convicted persons then undergoing sentence—some eighty or ninety—and finds that only four were discharged, he will come to the conclusion that there must have been something peculiar and exceptional in those four cases which made the Government arrive at the conclusion that the clemency of the Crown should be exercised in their behalf. Do not let me be misunderstood. If the present Government were able to point to circumstances which showed a less degree of guilt on the part of certain individuals, so as to distinguish them from the bulk of the offenders, and which showed that they were either dupes or that they had been misled, that they were repentant for the offences they

  1643
  had committed, and that they had given promises of amendment and of future good behaviour, I should be the last man to desire to restrict the exercise of clemency on the part of the Government. But let us apply these principles to the action of the Government in this matter. In the first place we are told that the convicts have been released in consequence of the failure of their health. But it is impossible that the Government, since their accession to Office, can have heard from Australia that it is absolutely necessary that the convicts in that country must be immediately released on account of their health having given way. Then, can the Government say with regard to the forty-nine convicts who were released in Ireland that they were dupes, persons misled, and showing a disposition to abjure their offences? Can they say that the learned Judges who sentenced these persons were consulted and had advised, the Government to release them, or that the convicts had given promises of amendment? I will tell your Lordships what I have read upon the subject in a newspaper which was put into my hands to-day. A person named Costello, who was No. 5 on the list of convicts, was sentenced to penal servitude for twelve years, having been, I believe, one of those who were engaged in the Jackmel affair; and no sooner is he released from prison than that person publishes in the newspaper to which I have referred a poetical composition of considerable literary merit—indeed, the production is so well-written that I should have thought he would have come under the literary class who were not to be released—headed "Don't talk but fight," and tittering sentiments which I should be sorry to read aloud in your Lordships' House. No. 15, John Warren, was sentenced to fifteen years' penal servitude; and from the same newspaper we learn that he was received with great triumph by his friends and acquaintances, and he also publishes a composition in which he inculcates upon the Irish people that the great means of regenerating the nation is the sabre. These productions are specimens of the feelings of two, at all events, of those who have been released in this country. What are the feelings of those who have been released in Australia one cannot, of course, yet know. But the matter does not rest there. I am happy to think that, whatever may
  1644
  be our political differences in this country, we are united in condemning the Fenian conspiracy. I give the noble Lords opposite credit for being as sincere in their abhorrence of the conspiracy as any on this side of the House. But, my Lords, we must not be content with merely holding opinions of our own; we must be careful that our opinions are not misunderstood by those in Ireland—we must be careful to ascertain what is likely to be the effect of these liberations on the minds of an ignorant and impulsive people. Now, forty-nine of these convicts have been discharged, and upon what occasion? The noble Earl (Earl Granville) alluded to the case of the Chartists, whom he said had been discharged after they had undergone a certain number of years' imprisonment. But upon what occasion were those prisoners discharged? The noble Earl says upon the occasion of a Royal marriage. But the discharge of the Fenian convicts has been upon the occasion of a change of Government. Now, my Lords, I cannot help recollecting what occurred in 1859. At that time there was a conspiracy in Ireland, which to all intents and purposes was the germ and shadow of the Fenian conspiracy—I mean the Phoenix conspiracy. The Government of the day prosecuted certain persons against whom they believed they had good evidence of their complicity in that conspiracy. In a great many instances the juries differed and the prisoners were sent back to gaol to await a second trial, while the only person convicted was sentenced to penal servitude for seven years. But, my Lords, there was a change of Government, and what was the consequence? Not only were the prisoners who were awaiting their trial discharged, but the person convicted was pardoned. The Phoenix conspiracy to all appearance collapsed; but not many months elapsed before it was revived in the form of the Fenian conspiracy, and Stephens, the very man who played so prominent a part in the first conspiracy, proceeded to take an equally prominent position in the second. The Fenian conspiracy having come to a head, the then Government succeeded, with great difficulty and at enormous expense, in convicting several of those whose complicity was proved with a conspiracy which was endeavoured to be carried into effect by such means as stabbing

  1645
  policemen in the back, blowing up houses and barracks, and by the Clerkenwell outrage. It was all very well for the Government to say that they had not pardoned those whose hands were actually imbued in the blood of the victims; but I contend that of the whole of those who took an active part in this conspiracy it might be said that their hands were more of less imbued in blood. Well, some eighty or ninety convictions having been obtained, certain exceptional cases were taken into consideration by the late Government, who pardoned some three or four of the convicts. But a new Government comes into Office, they are perhaps besieged by applications from various municipal officers in Ireland, and the result is that the prisoners are released. What must be the impression produced among the ignorant and excitable Irish population by this act on the part of the Government? Why, they must say—"We have now got a Government which has some sympathy for us; they have done for us that which the late Government would not do; they have released the great bulk of the Fenian conspirators; and, therefore, we must suppose that after all they don't think that the Fenian conspiracy was such a bad thing." The opinion of the Irish people upon this matter becomes of great importance when viewed in connection with another subject to which attention has been drawn—namely, the land question. I have found no fault with the Government for not proceeding with an Irish Land Bill during the present Session; but I do find fault with the Attorney General, and particularly with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the present Government, telling the Irish people that the land question is one which they may expect to be taken up next to that which is occupying the attention of Parliament at the present moment. These two Members of Her Majesty's Government have told the Irish people that the land question in Ireland is in an unsatisfactory condition; but they have told them nothing more. But that is exactly the opinion of those who are agitating in Ireland; they also believe that the present condition of the land question is unsatisfactory, and therefore they agree with the Prime Minister in that respect. The Fenian conspirators will naturally say—"The Government
  1646
  are engaged at the present in a crusade to strip the Church of its property"—as to the policy of such a course I express no opinion at this moment—"we are told to wait until that is over, and then the land question will be taken up, and just as it fares with the Church this year so will it fare with the land next year." The noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) has said that he has reason to believe that the clemency of the Government, which has been extended to this schedule of the Fenian offenders, has not been misplaced, and that the results of the clemency which has been shown are not unsatisfactory. I have already given your Lordships two cases in which it has been very seriously misplaced, and I have read to you the sentiments of the released convicts. I will now proceed to show your Lordships what are the feelings of other Irish persons, as exhibited in an Irish newspaper called the Weekly News, which was published in Dublin last Saturday—
  "The list comprises forty-nine names, and includes many gallant young fellows whose demeanour in the hour of danger and in the dock won for them the ardent sympathy of the Irish race. The greater number of the men whose sufferings are thus abridged are still in far-off Australia; but among those for whom the gates of the English prisons have opened, and who have already been restored to their homes, our readers will be glad to find the names of Charles J. Hickham, the gentle and the true; of William O'Sullivan, the worthy son of a worthy father; and of James F. X. O'Brien, whose eloquent vindication of Irish patriotism hi the dock will be remembered while fearlessness and public spirit are honoured in Ireland. Among the released prisoners in Australia we notice with pleasure the names of Michael Moore, the pipe-maker, than whom not one of the brave band acted with more dignity and manliness; of James Flood, one of the heroes of the Chester raid, and unquestionably as fine a specimen of an Irish 'rebel' as ever confronted an accuser; and many others, whose daring deeds are remembered, and whose parting words are cherished in every corner of the land."
  These are the persons whom the noble Earl described as being poor, weak, suffering creatures, who were discharged because they were so inoffensive and infirm, and because they could not do the least harm, even if they were so minded. The noble Earl complimented the Cardinal at the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland because he deprecated collections on behalf of Fenian convicts; but I find, at a meeting in Limerick, held for the collection of funds for the

  1647
  Fenian convicts, that Father Shanahan, the Roman Catholic curate of St. Michael's, made some remarks of a strikingly different character, which were received with great applause by his hearers. He says—
  "I do not by any means profess to be a Fenian. [A Voice: It is a pity you are not.] [Cheers.] Father Shanahan: But if Fenianism means love for Ireland—[A Voice: It does.] Father Shanahan: If Fenianism means attachment to my native land, if it means 'Ireland for the Irish,' if it means that we are able to govern ourselves as a people, then I am a Fenian. [Loud and prolonged cheers.] [A Voice: Three cheers for self-government.] [Cheers] Father Shanahan: That cheer finds an echo in my heart, and not in my heart alone, but in the heart of many priests in Ireland. [Renewed cheering.] There may be, to be sure—I do not for one moment intend to conceal the fact—a few priests out of the hundreds who minister to the Catholics of Ireland of opinion that for the general welfare and advancement of our land we should be connected with a powerful nation, and that we would not be able to govern ourselves if separated. [A Voice: We would.] Father Shanahan: There may be a few, but I do not believe the priests of Ireland as a body, are of that opinion. [Cheers.] I am, therefore, proud to stand up here to-night and proclaim that I am not of that opinion. [Cheers] I sympathize deeply with those men who for the past three years have suffered in the dungeons of British rule a protracted martyrdom. [Cheers.] I sincerely rejoice that their sufferings are now about to be brought to an end. I rejoice sincerely, I repeat, I rejoice as much as any man in this room—and I believe there are honest and sympathetic hearts here to-night ["Hear, hear!"]—and you must all rejoice with me, that the sufferings of so many are now about to be brought to a close. [Cheers.] And though it may be that the great man who directs the helm of State may not be able to procure us full justice"—
  which means self-government, of course—
  "still we must honour him as the first of Englishmen who has proclaimed that Ireland must be governed from an Irish point of view."
  The Irish point of view being the view of the speaker. But that is not all. Father Shanahan was followed by a town councillor, and I pray you to mark what he says, because it will help to dispel the noble Earl's delusion that this release of prisoners had worked beneficially for the country. Mr. Lawrence Kelly said—
  "I tell you at the outset I am a Fenian. [Cheers.] The Habeas Corpus Act has been restored, and I am not afraid of being taken in the morning, and I tell you, without any reservation, that I am a Fenian. [Cheers.] My father was a Fenian, and all our generations were Fenians. [Cheers.] I tell you every Irishman since the day the English invader put his foot on our shores, every Irishman who is not in the pay of the Government, is a Fenian."
  1648
  This is rather opposed to the noble Earl, who propounded the doctrine, I believe, that Ribandism is the best antidote to Fenianism. Mr. Kelly adds—and I pray the noble Earl's attention—
  "We are promised disestablishment, a land Bill, and all those measures calculated to conciliate the people, and whom are you to thank?"
  I dare say the noble Earl imagines the response will be "the Government." Not at all. The Report continues—
  "A Voice: The Fenians. [Cheers.] Mr. Kelly: The Fenians, unquestionably. I ask you now what concessions would the British Government have made, what would they have done for us but for these men, if it were not for the men in America? [A Voice: Three cheers for Grant.] [Cheers.] Mr. Kelly: I ask you for three cheers for General Grant. [Renewed cheering.] [Another Voice: Three cheers for Stephens.] [Great cheering.]
  That is the view of the people of Ireland. We are promised disestablishment and a satisfactory solution of the land question; we are promised all sorts of good things, and whom are we to thank for it? The Fenians. Moreover, the Government, having just come into Office, know they have the Fenians to thank for it, so they are going to release them all.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Not all.
  LORD CAIRNS: No, not all; but thirty-four of them. Well, when I was reading this speech by Mr. Kelly I could not help thinking I had heard the keynote of it before, and then came to my recollection an expression which fell from a greater man than Mr. Kelly—I mean the present Prime Minister. I recollected, when the Fenian conspiracy had reached its height, and when the convictions were being obtained against some of these men now released, the present Prime Minister stated his view with regard to the Fenian conspiracy; and what did he say? Although the language is more guarded, although the sentences are more rounded, his remarks seem to me exactly to tally with Mr. Kelly's. This is what Mr. Gladstone said—
  EARL GRANVILLE: On what occasion?
  LORD CAIRNS: About the time these convictions were being obtained, the winter before last, or thereabouts.
  EARL GRANVILLE: In Parliament?
  LORD CAIRNS: I think it was at a public meeting. He said—

  1649
  "These painful and horrible manifestations may perhaps, in the merciful designs of Providence—without in the slightest degree acquitting the authors of responsibility—have been intended to invite this nation to greater search of its own heart and spirit and conscience with reference to the condition of Ireland and the legislation affecting that country."
  ["Hear!"] No doubt, noble Lords cheer, but I want to know what is the difference between the two statements beyond method and style. It is the Fenians we have to thank, says Mr. Kelly. Mr. Gladstone puts it in much more becoming guise; he says Fenianism invites you to search your hearts and consciences and see whether something cannot be done for Ireland; but it is the same thing—the promises for Ireland's good are all due to Fenians, and, as accession to power is also due to these promises, the Fenians ought to be liberated.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: We have certainly wandered a very long way from the subject brought before us by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde). One would have supposed that the speech of the noble Earl on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey) and the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) were based on a formal Motion censuring Her Majesty's Government for having advised the pardon of these convicts. I should not have risen to address your Lordships had it not been for this characteristic of the debate, but would have left the matter to rest on the argument of my noble Friend (Earl Granville). I rise lest anyone should suppose that, considering the part which I took with respect to the Fenian conspiracy, I did not heartily approve the conduct of the Government in the matter under discussion. I, however, accept all the responsibility which should fall upon me by virtue of my position; indeed, I should, perhaps, accept a larger share of responsibility, because I naturally feel that my opinion with regard to the advice to be tendered to Her Majesty must have weighed with my Colleagues more than it would have done if I had not had some share in the recent government of Ireland. I hope no one in this House will charge me either with indifference or undue leniency during the time I administered the government of Ireland. I remember that a very different tone from this at first characterized the comments upon my proceedings, and. though noble Lords were
  1650
  willing—out of consideration, perhaps, for my inexperience—to allow that I might be justified in the view I took of the serious nature of that conspiracy, very high authorities in this House were disposed to question whether I had not exaggerated the importance of the Fenian rising, and whether I had not resolved to take more serious measures than the case warranted. I remember also, exceedingly well, on my return to this country, after resigning Office—when I ventured to warn tie House of the very serious nature of the Fenian conspiracy—that I was thought rather to have exceeded the limits which a calm view of the case would have dictated. Not long after a change of Government occurred, and to my great satisfaction the noble Lord who succeeded to the Office of Chief Secretary (the Earl of Mayo), and who is now Governor General of India—and than whom no one was more competent, he being an Irishman, to form a correct estimate of the movement—went as far as I had done, and fully confirmed what I had said. I say, I never was disposed to treat the conspiracy as a matter about which we ought to be indifferent. We have been told in strong language that this act of clemency was connected, in point of time, rather unfortunately, with a change of Government. Let me remind you that on a former change of Government a measure was adopted, as it turned out unfortunately, upon insufficient grounds, which at that time led to a similar charge. In 1867 the Government of that day did not think it necessary to advise the renewal of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; and the Irish Attorney General, with, some imprudence, boasted at his election that the newly-installed Government had not done so, seeking to obtain popularity by contrasting the policy of the Government with that of the preceding one. I should have been only too well pleased if his vaticinations had proved correct; but almost immediately afterwards there occurred the only open outbreak, and that Government was obliged to renew the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. I mention that, not as a conclusive argument, but as another coincidence. It was not the recent change of Government, but the fact that we were able to advise Parliament not to renew the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, which

  1651
  made it natural and proper for us to consider whether, as the country was about to return to the ordinary reign of law, it might not be possible to exercise clemency by releasing some of the Fenian convicts. My noble Friend (Earl Granville) has fully explained the manner in which the question was looked at. I never could consent to adopt—and it seems to me it would be utterly impossible to adopt, the principle laid down by the noble Earl on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey), and apply strictly and without remorse to political offenders the rules adopted with regard to ordinary criminals. The main consideration which ought to influence the Government in advising a general or a partial amnesty is this—Can political prisoners be released without endangering in any way the safety of the State? If safety no longer requires that they should be kept under punishment, I maintain that the time has arrived when an amnesty may be properly granted. This question has been argued as if we had released the principal conspirators; but twenty-two of the leaders, whom we consider it dangerous to set at large, still remain in prison. The cases were carefully examined by the Irish Government, and I believe the liberated prisoners are men who might be safely released without endangering the security of the country, or in any way encouraging these agrarian crimes. I need scarcely say I regard those crimes with the utmost abhorrence; but they constitute, a continuous chapter in Irish history. The first of the recent outrages occurred some months ago, long before the present Government came into Office; the first symptom of the renewal of agrarianism, in an aggravated form, was the attack on Mr. Scully and his party. I do not for a moment connect the occurrence of these with the fact of the late Government being in Office. They are the consequences of rooted disease which successive Governments for the last fifty years have endeavoured in vain to eradicate. My noble Friend told us to put it down; the difficulty is to find out the way. I believe the powers which are given by the law to the Irish Government are the only powers which can be used with any effect; they are the powers of sending special police, who must be paid by the locality, so that the cost is a severe punishment. But any man who entertains the
  1652
  hope that these or any such measures will lead to the disappearance of the disease must know Ireland very little. These agrarian crimes, notwithstanding recent occurrences, have happily diminished of late years, and I firmly hope we shall see a still greater diminution of them; but to connect these crimes with the Fenian conspiracy and that with changes in the Government, and then to draw a general conclusion that the policy of Government is the cause of them, seems to me a complete non causa pro causa. Successive Governments have failed to carry Land Bills, and it seems to me it is infinitely better than exciting expectations to disappoint them, and for popularity's sake bringing forward measures which we know cannot be carried now, to confine ourselves to a policy which can be carried out.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEdenied having said that it was the duty of the Government to put down these outrages; what he said was that the Government ought to take steps to discover the cause of them, and then they would find it easier to frame a Bill which, would give satisfaction to the people.

LAW OF HYPOTHEC IN SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDwished to know the terms of the Order of Reference, and whether there was any idea of assimilating the Law of Hypothec in Scotland to the Law of Distress in England; for although the two might be analogous they were not identical.
  THE EARL OP AIRLIEsaid, the Order of Reference was confined to the Law of Hypothec in Scotland.

  INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for enabling Her Majesty and Her Majesty's successors to divide Dioceses and to erect additional Bishopricks in England and Wales—Was presented by The Lord LYTTELTON; read 1a (No. 34.)
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Four o'clock.